Thank you Reeve! That's what I was searching for - an intelligent description of the Tea Party's political relevance. Raes touched on it a bit too in the post above - it's that reformist core that I was overlooking. I am very interested to know more about these particular people.
Let's continue the discussion!
a) I think a lot of people in the tea party realize that some of the GOP tried and true are hopping on the bandwagon. Those are the politicians that are considered by them to be the problem and ones they are working on removing.
It all smells a bit like astroturf to me. The corporation who trains people to mobilise a great number of Tea Party constituents, Freedomworks, was founded by former Republican lobbyist Dick Armey. He still represents a large number of players in the pharmaceuticals business amongst other corporate parties. Now this, by definition, undermines the "grassroots" angle of the Party. It's a bit of a "who came first?" type argument. You say grassroots, I say astroturf. I suspect the answer is a lot more complex either way, so I say we agree to disagree.
Needless to say, The Tea Party will most likely run hand in hand with the GOP in upcoming mid-terms, despite claims of discontent. A vote for a Tea Party Republican, is still a vote for the Republicans in the end, as they tend to fall in line with their party more often than not. Unless of course a whole bunch of conservative independents pop up.... that would be interesting.
b) Regarding Rand Paul's comments -- not a bright move on his part but if you are familiar with history, you can easily understand where the slip up was and what he meant to say. Most people like to think that the Civil War was about ending slavery. It was not. It was (a) about the consolidation of power under the federal government instead of local states and (b) the economic impact the actions of the north would have on the states in the south.
Slavery was never a good thing and it should never have happened -- but it was ending. Incidentally, the first owner of a black slave was in fact a black man. Interesting court case about that but that is neither here nor there.
We can say a lot of things about Rand Paul (like that he's possibly named after Ayn Rand which is both fitting and hilarious), but I think I'll just leave it at this: Libertarianism is hard to sell. It's a principle based system, which leaves every single node of development, social evolution and community welfare at the mercy of a free market without consideration for human or environmental costs. Now bearing in mind recent examples of big companies behaving badly, it's not something that thrills a lot of people.
As an example, Child Labour laws defy theoretical Libertarianism - but try putting that into practice. In retrospect Rand Paul didn't do anything wrong by his political beliefs - he was merely a scape-goat for the problems with Libertarianism itself.
c) Regarding the "tea party movement" -- I consider myself part of that and I've read up as much as possible on the health care package that was pushed through. if you want my take in a nutshell, it increases government spending, doesn't address the real issues with the way insurance is handled, or creates the efficiencies needed to drive down rates. I think it will cost american companies and american people more money in the long run. Denmark has great universal health coverage but they also pay 70% in taxes and a stable population growth (not many people immigrating in). Don't get me wrong, having been unemployeed without benefits, having friends with medical conditions that are unemployeed without insurance, I am ALL for a universal health care program -- I just don't think the current plan adequately addresses the issues and will ultimately do more harm than good.
I couldn't agree more! Universal healthcare is where it's at. The issue here is with the lack of discussion and alternative proposals. The Tea Party to my knowledge has not brought any ideas to the table aside from saying "no, we don't want to pay more". To be fair, this is also the general attitude of most Republicans, and let's try to completely ignore Sarah Palin and her "Death Panels". The Administration's proposal was far from perfect, but it was an attempt to fix a system which was so broken and so overdue for a change. To show up to Town Hall meetings simply to heckle speakers is counter-productive and detrimental to the country in the long run.
Of course the media focused on the more vocal crazies in the midst, so I'm not denying the presence of people with substantial ideas like yourself. I'm just saying that you should vote those crazies off the island because they're a hindrance to both sides of the fence (or a many-sided fence... that's a really bad analogy - just anyone who has a genuine interest).
The bottom-line is that health care costs money. Good, universal healthcare is a huge investment. I've lived in a few countries, and so have experienced a mixed bag of healthcare systems - as a general rule however, you get what you pay for
